You Must Be in Favor of This

[jms62]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

I can't argue with you. You known me too well. You called me out on my obvious hypocrisy for supporting Officer Wilson but not supporting the feds for wanting to harrass people who withdraw $5,000 from the bank. You were the only one on this board smart enough to notice my obvious hypocrisy on that.

So you like us to believe that the Wilson issue is the ONLY time that you have supported law enforcement on this forum? This is the only time you ever sided against law enforcement. Also Rupe were you not outraged at existing regulations that require banks to report all transactions over 10K? Is it the extra 5 K that enrages you?


https://www.fdic.gov/regulations/saf...section8-1.pdf

[Danzig]

the wilson case is an interesting one. altho he was cleared of the shooting, which i expected him to be, the whole incident touched off all that happened since, and not just in ferguson.
it's started a lot more dialogue about the whole issue, which is a good thing. things have been going down the wrong path too often in regards to crime and punishment, as well as us seeing that altho crime is down significantly, you really can't tell that by looking at police departments and prisons. you certainly can't tell when you see the over-militarization of our police departments. it's more control of the peasantry it seems.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by jms62

So you like us to believe that the Wilson issue is the ONLY time that you have supported law enforcement on this forum? This is the only time you ever sided against law enforcement.

I sided against law enforcement in the George Zimmerman case. I agreed with Alan Dershowitz (who is obviously a liberal democrat) when he totally chastised Angela Cory (the republican special prosecutor) for overcharging Zimmerman.

In the New York case where the cops choked the guy and he died, I though that at the very least the police should be held accountable civilly and that the family of the victim should be owed a few million dollars.

With regard to the republicans, it is true that I believe that even the worst republican would be better than Obama. That doesn't mean I love the republicans. I don't like Rand Paul. I'm not a fan of Rush Limbaugh. If those guys were running for President against a guy like Charles Krauthammer, who is a democrat, I would vote for Krauthammer. I would vote for a democrat like Harold Ford over Rand Paul.

Even though I'm not a big fan of Rush Limbaugh, I think he is the greatest person in the world compared to Obama.

[jms62]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

I sided against law enforcement in the George Zimmerman case. I agreed with Alan Dershowitz (who is obviously a liberal democrat) when he totally chastised Angela Cory (the republican special prosecutor) for overcharging Zimmerman.

In the New York case where the cops choked the guy and he died, I though that at the very least the police should be held accountable civilly and that the family of the victim should be owed a few million dollars.

With regard to the republicans, it is true that I believe that even the worst republican would be better than Obama. That doesn't mean I love the republicans. I don't like Rand Paul. I'm not a fan of Rush Limbaugh. If those guys were running for President against a guy like Charles Krauthammer, who is a democrat, I would vote for Krauthammer. I would vote for a democrat like Harold Ford over Rand Paul.

Even though I'm not a big fan of Rush Limbaugh, I think he is the greatest person in the world compared to Obama.

Can you articulate why you have such hatred for Obama?

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by jms62

Can you articulate why you have such hatred for Obama?

ask him why he hates poor kids while you're at it:


Originally Posted by jms62

Who would pay for this effort?

rupert: I would divert the money from lunch programs for poor children.

[jms62]

Originally Posted by Danzig

ask him why he hates poor kids while you're at it:


Originally Posted by jms62

Who would pay for this effort?

rupert: I would divert the money from lunch programs for poor children.

I have to give him the benefit of the doubt I am sure he was bustin my stones. His handle is Rupert Pupkin after all.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by jms62

I have to give him the benefit of the doubt I am sure he was bustin my stones. His handle is Rupert Pupkin after all.

She is probably the only person on this entire board who thought I was serious.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by jms62

Can you articulate why you have such hatred for Obama?

Yes, basically for all of these reasons. I think this guy articulated it very well. I don't think I could do any better. I agree with practically everything he said:

http://nypost.com/2015/03/22/israel-beware-of-obama/

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

If those guys were running for President against a guy like Charles Krauthammer, who is a democrat, I would vote for Krauthammer.

"Krauthammer, who has spoken about his own switch from Democrat to Republican in the 1980s..."

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/1...#ixzz3VLzGYO2T

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

"Krauthammer, who has spoken about his own switch from Democrat to Republican in the 1980s..."

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/1...#ixzz3VLzGYO2T

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

"Krauthammer, who has spoken about his own switch from Democrat to Republican in the 1980s..."

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/1...#ixzz3VLzGYO2T

I did not realize he had switched.

I would probably like Senator Manchin. I don't know much about him but he sounds like a reasonable guy who is in the center. I have no problem with centrist Democrats. They are often times better than some of the far right republicans.

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

I did not realize he had switched.

.... thirty years ago....

I would probably like Senator Manchin. I don't know much about him but ...

He likes to shoot deer.

http://www.whsv.com/home/headlines/80001517.html

[jms62]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

.... thirty years ago....



He likes to shoot deer.

http://www.whsv.com/home/headlines/80001517.html

Dick Cheney was a big deer hunter also

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MC9PTsDbN1I

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by jms62

Dick Cheney was a big deer hunter also

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MC9PTsDbN1I

In all fairness, he was technically hunting quail. Even if the only thing he hit were donors.

I read an article about the guy Cheney shot. He was actually pretty severely injured.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by jms62

So you like us to believe that the Wilson issue is the ONLY time that you have supported law enforcement on this forum? This is the only time you ever sided against law enforcement. Also Rupe were you not outraged at existing regulations that require banks to report all transactions over 10K? Is it the extra 5 K that enrages you?


https://www.fdic.gov/regulations/saf...section8-1.pdf

First of all, I couldn't tell you what Administration implemented the $10k thing in the first case, so you can't accuse me of being biased. I know the thing has been around forever. I'm used to it. Everybody knows about it. You know that if you make a deposit over 10k, it's going to be reported. I don't like it, but it is what it is. I understand why they do it.

But now they have been taking it to a whole new level. As if reporting it isn't bad enough, now they are confiscating all the money from people's accounts. As Danzig said, in this country you are supposed to be considered innocent until you are proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. In these money cases, it is the opposite. You are considered guilty if you make suspicious deposits. They will take away your money. The burden is on you to prove you're innocent. That is insane. I'm against that no matter who is in office. I wouldn't be shocked if there were cases similar to the cases mentioned in the NY Times while Bush was President.

But no matter who is to blame for the thing getting to the point where it has gotten like those cases mentioned in the NY Times, now Holder wants to double down and get even more aggressive. After articles like the NY Times article, most politicians were outraged and wanted to stop this kind of thing. Holder was the opposite. He thought we better start getting more aggressive and going after people making withdrawals.

[jms62]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

First of all, I couldn't tell you what Administration implemented the $10k thing in the first case, so you can't accuse me of being biased. I know the thing has been around forever. I'm used to it. Everybody knows about it. You know that if you make a deposit over 10k, it's going to be reported. I don't like it, but it is what it is. I understand why they do it.

But now they have been taking it to a whole new level. As if reporting it isn't bad enough, now they are confiscating all the money from people's accounts. As Danzig said, in this country you are supposed to be considered innocent until you are proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. In these money cases, it is the opposite. You are considered guilty if you make suspicious deposits. They will take away your money. The burden is on you to prove you're innocent. That is insane. I'm against that no matter who is in office. I wouldn't be shocked if there were cases similar to the cases mentioned in the NY Times while Bush was President.

But no matter who is to blame for the thing getting to the point where it has gotten like those cases mentioned in the NY Times, now Holder wants to double down and get even more aggressive. After articles like the NY Times article, most politicians were outraged and wanted to stop this kind of thing. Holder was the opposite. He thought we better start getting more aggressive and going after people making withdrawals.

You will feel even worse reading the link that I posted. Also I highly recommend the book that I posted for Zig. It is eye opening.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by jms62

You will feel even worse reading the link that I posted. Also I highly recommend the book that I posted for Zig. It is eye opening.

It sounds like you have read plenty of books on this subject. What is the solution? Is there a solution? What types of policies should be implemented to reverse the path we are going down?

[jms62]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

It sounds like you have read plenty of books on this subject. What is the solution? Is there a solution? What types of policies should be implemented to reverse the path we are going down?

I honestly don't see a solution because those that benefit would be responsible for changing the rules.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by jms62

I honestly don't see a solution because those that benefit would be responsible for changing the rules.

We are screwed. Can't afford bribes....er, lobbyists.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by jms62

I honestly don't see a solution because those that benefit would be responsible for changing the rules.

The people who make policy are obviously the lawmakers in Washington. And they obviously don't represent the people. They represent special interests. So I understand that things won't change. But in an imaginary world if we had people in congress who actually represented the people instead of special interest groups, what would they need to do to reverse the path we are on?